E  ci  5'<a- 


ACCEPTANCE  SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  NORMAN  EDDY, 


BEFORE 

THE  DEMOCRATIC  NOMINATING  CONVP^NTION. 


Plymouth,  Thursday,  Axigusl  17,  1854* 


Mr.  President y 

and  iJcnllemcn  of  the  Convention: 
'This  nomination  has  been  so  suclilcnly  and 
imaniraously  made,  made  too  by  acclamation, 
that  I  confess  myself  standing  before  yon  almost 
unmanned.  Something  more  than  two  years 
ago,  a  convention  of  your  predecessors,  alike 
representing  the  national  Democracy  of  this 
Congressional  district,  by  as  unanimous  a  vote 
as  that  had  this  dav,  nominated  me  for  the  33d 
Congress,  the  first  session  of  which  has  just 
closed.  It  also  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions; 
and  that  the  position  of  the  Democratic  party 
might  be  clearly  understood  and  accurately  de¬ 
fined,  adopted  without  qualification  or  amend¬ 
ment,  the  resolutions  passed  at  the  National 
Democratic  Convention  held  in  Baltimore  the 
May  preceding.  Among  them  ivas  one  recog¬ 
nising  and  fully  endorsing  ivhat  is  termed  the 
compromise  or  adjustment  measures  of  1850, 
and  was  passed,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  wdthout  a 
dissentient  voice. 

The  old  Democratic  banner,  which  on  four 
several  occasions  had  been  carried  by  my  im¬ 
mediate  predecessors,  (who  lam  happy  to  see 
present,)  in  honor  and  in  triumph,  that  conven¬ 
tion  theu  placed  in  my  hands,  and  bade  me  in 
the  contest  then  began,  t»  carry  it  always  with 
me — always  in  sight:  to  carry  it  high,  that  the 
principles  it  represented  and  typified  (for  it 
was  the  flag  of  the  Constitution  and  the  Union) 
could  at  all  times  and  everywhere  be  seen.  I 
i(^6k  it,  and  however  unequal  to  the  duty  in 
other  respects,-!  carried  it  fearlessly  into  the 
contest,  fetood  by -it  in- 'all  that,  and  the  Presi¬ 
dential  canvass  whro'b!btlow^d,*an'(i  nev^  Jow- 
ered  it,  under  any  menace  6»  blandishment,  to 
foe  or  faction-  I  claim  to  have  been  feithfnl  to 
the  trust;  and  I  claim  nothing  more;  I  did  my 
duty  as  I  understood  it  then,  and  Fubsequently 


*  Reported  by  A.  E,  Dfafiee. 


in  the  Congress  to  which  the  suffrages  of  the 
people  sent  me. 

To-day  this  Convention,  embodying  an  ag¬ 
gregate  of  character  and  influence  never  sur¬ 
passed  by  any  convention  of  any  party  ever 
held  in  this  district,  with  a  unanimity  that 
gratifies  me  beyond  the  expression  of  words, 
and  for  which  words  cannot  sufficiently  thank 
you,  has  nominated  me  for  a  re-election. 

I  can  only  promise  now,  that  with  that  same 
Democratic  standard  again  in  my  hands,  I  will 
go  into  the  conflict  before  me,  sustaining  with 
my  might  the  time  honored  principles  of  our 
political  creed,  and  above  all,  maintaining  the 
doctrines  of  self  government  in  all  their  strength 
and  vigor  to  all  the  extent  of  this  vast  repub¬ 
lican  empire.  I  will  not  permit  myself  to  doubt 
that  a  triumph  awaits  you  and  me — but  if  ia 
the  gathering  storm  which  fusion,  faction  and 
disunion  are  creating  and  concentrating  to 
overwhelm  and  destroy  us,  I  should  fall,  that 
same  old  flag  shall  be  my  Avinding  sheet.  I 
should  at  least  feel  tho  patriot’s  consolation, 
that  among  all  my  political  supporters,  from 
those  of  rank  and  station  to  the  unpretending 
and  unambitious  voter,  there  is  not  one-«not 
one  but  what  while  life  lasted  would  “cling  to 
the  Constitution  and  the  Union  as  the  maiiner 
clings  to  the  last  plank  when  the  night  and  the 
tempest  has  closed  in  around  him;” — not  one 
that  has  ever  harbored  the  thought  of  disunion 
or  upon  whose  lips  ever  hung  the  hateful — the 
treasonable  word.  I  defy  my  competitor  to  say 
as  much.  [Applause.] 

It  would  be  in  vain,  gentlemen,  to  address 
yon  at  any  Jength,  upon  the  various  questions 
whieh'have  engaged  the  attention  of  Congiess 
during  its  recent  session.  I  need  not  tell  yAu 
that  it  has  been  a  long  and  a  laborious  One,  I 
think  it  has  done  the  country  muot  •rs'r’dce; 

.....  I  f;}  i-iioi'tnlMl'Uff 

.t’n.*;,;  ■;  'lo  'i;  •If'*,/ 

-  I  '  I  •  I .  .  .  ^  ;  .-G I  .  i<|M  li  •  1 1  M'k'f  I' 


o 


and  much  that  1  had  hoped  would  be  done,  has, 

I  regret  to  say,  been  left  undone;— whose  fault 
it  is  may  be  a  subject  of  inquiry  hereafter. 

Early  in  the  session,  a  bill  for  the.  organiza¬ 
tion  of  Nebraska  Territory  was  introduced  into 
both  Houses,  and  referred  to  the  appropriate 
committees  on  territories.  Judge  Douglas, 
from  the  committee  of  the  Senate,  reported  a 
bill,  upon  the  pendancy  of  which  Mr.  Dixon,  a 
Kentucky  Senator,  introduced  an  amendment 
repealing  in  effect  what  has  been  termed  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line.  According  to  my 
recollection,  and  I  only  speak  from  recollection, 
the  bill  and  amendment  was  recommitted  to 
the  same  committee  who  through  its  chairman 
reported  back  to  the  Senate  an  amended  bill, 
which  after  undergoing  in  that  body  §ome  mod¬ 
ification,  provided  among  other  things  that,  in¬ 
asmuch  as  ‘Hhe  Sth  section  of  the  act,  prepara¬ 
tory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the 
Union,  approved  March  6th  1820,  was  inconsis¬ 
tent  with  the  principles  of  non-intervention  by 
Congress  with  slavery  in  the  states  and  territo¬ 
ries,  as  recognized  by  the  legislation  of  1850, 
commonly  called  the  ‘•'compromise  lueasiu’es,’’ 
the  same  was  made  ‘“inoperative  and  void.’’ — 
The  principle  of  “non-intervention,”  leaving 
the  people  of  the  territories  “free  to  form  aud 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their 
own  way,  subject  only  to  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  seemed  so  well  founded  in 
right,  so  equitable  in  its  application  to  ail  the 
unorganized  territory  of  the  Union,  just  and 
equal  to  every  state  of  it  north  and  south,  that 
for  a  while  although  speculation  was  as  usual 
busy,  there  was  no  organized  opposition — no 
sectional  clamor,  and  no  imputed  violation  of 
national  honor  or  faith.  But  the  calm  was  a 
deceitful  and  a  short  lived  one.  An  address  to 
the  people  of  the  Union  north,  was  issued  by 
Slessrs  Sumner,-  ChasCj  Giddiiigs  and  others, 
denouncing  the  measure  as  a  violation  ef  a  sa¬ 
cred  compact,  half  as  old  as  the  constitution 
itself,  and  a  surrender  of  territory,  as  large  as 
the  original  thirteen  Colonies  to  the  blight  of 
slavery. 

Dresses  in  their  sympathy,  and. presses  in  op¬ 
position  to  the  administration  and  the  demo¬ 
cratic  party,  echoed  the  charges  with  every  ad¬ 
dition  that  ingenuity  could  invent,  whether  in 
the  perversion  or  mis-statement  of  fects,,  or  in 
the  deliberate  and  shameless  publication  of 
mendacious  falsehoods.  Abolition  was  doing 
its  fitting  work — that  of  agitation.  It  was 
upon  its  appointed  mission,  scattering  in  its 


})ath  distrust  and  di.'-may.  Sectional  prejudi¬ 
ces  were  ;vrouse(l,  and  sectional  pride  appealed 
to,  by  all  the  arts  and  appliances  that  could  be 
made  to  reach  the  passions  or  the  self  esteem 
of  the  citizen.  Seeking  “to  rule  or  ruin,”  they 
invoked  aid  from  the  ranks  ot  parties  defeated, 
and  from  factions  and  discontents  in  the  mar¬ 
ket,  and  therefore  without  principles  to  aban¬ 
don,  and  all  the  isms  that  could  be  bought  or 
coa.ted,  to  confederate  with  it.  The  “fusion’’ 
is  now  complete,  and  the  cohesion  of  its  dis- 
cordent  elements  is  attributable  to  the  hope  of 
office,  and  the  promise  of  the  spoils.  There¬ 
fore  gentlemen,  the  dangers  that  menace  us 
are  neither  few  nor  trifling;  aud  to  be  met  suc¬ 
cessfully,  they  should  be  estimated  at  their 
strength,  aud  looked  full  in  the  face.  The  time 
honered  whig  p®rty  has  been  disbanded,  and 
its  noble  ship  upon  v  hose  quarter  deck  once 
stood  those  great  and  lamented  statesmen, 
Webster  and  Clay,  is  now  engiilphed  in  the 
maelstroom  of  Abolitionism. 

I  believe  there  are  members  of  that  same  old 
party,  spurning  a  coalition,  alike  repugnant  to 
their  ancient  political  faith,  and  the  preserva¬ 
tion  of  our  Constitutional  Union,  that  will  ab¬ 
jure  a  connection  so  unnatural,  and  frinight 
with  cousequences  so  mischievous.  They  are 
the  Webster  and  Clay  Whigs.  National  Whigs, 
whose  love  of  country  is  limited  only  by  its 
boundaries. 

But  that  combination  and  fusion  of  factions, 
whose  declared  band  of  Union,  is  the  repeal  of 
a  law  that  gives  to  the  people  of  a  territory 
the  right  of  self  government — is  a  combination 
that  can  never  carry  with  it.  either  the  confi¬ 
dence  or  the  support  of  the  American  people. 
I  know  this  “fusion”  numbers,  many  friends  of 
both  of  the  illustrious  statesmen  just  named, 
aud  I  am  sorry  for  their  delusion.  But  there  is  ^ 
another  portion  of  that  same  fusion, that  would 
mock  their  memories,  aud  insult  their  graves. 
Such  a  party — a  party  of  parties,  with  the 
most  impudent  assurance,  call  themselves  the 
people’s  party.  The  people’s  party!  Why  the 
people  have  been  defeating  them,  under  every 
name  and  guise  for  the  last  20  years.  They 
will  perform  that  duty  again.  The  people  re- 
pudiattf  the  dqcti'ine  of  selfgbyernment!  n»  sir 
never. 

I  propose,  gentlemen, now  to  examine  briefly 
the  controverted  provisions  of  the  Kansas  am 
Nebraska  law,  especially  that  relating  to  th* 
Missouri  Compromise. 

Was  it  a  compact?  for  I  say,  if  it  was  a  com 


o 

o 


pact,  if  the  faith  of  the  nation  was  pledged  in 
it,  then  I  admit  that  there  \va3  no  excuse  for 
rej»eal.  If  it  was  a  compact  lialf  as  old  as  the 
Constitution,  then  I  admit  that  those  who  vio¬ 
lated  it  deserve  to  be  placed  on  “a  roll  of 
infamy.”  But  if  I  succeed  in  showing  that 
there  is  no  compact  or  contract  in  the  Mis¬ 
souri  act, — conceding  that  the  principle  of 
self  government  is  right — ^you  must  say  tluit 
every  one  of  the  compromises  of  the  national 
Union  remains  in  tacC  and  that  none  of  them 
h.ave  been  abrogated. 

Let  us  look  a  little  to  tlie  history  of  what  is 
called  this  compact  of  1820.  In  1819,  Missouri, 
then  a  Territory,  had  called  a  convention, 
framed  a  State  Constitution,  and  asked  for  ad¬ 
mission  into  the  Union.  During  the  session  of 
1820,  some  of  you  as  cotemporaries  recollect — 
most  of  you  doubtless  remember,  from  tradition 
as  wxll  as  reading,  that  Congress  passed  a  law 
for  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  and 
])rohibiting  Slavery  north  of  3GS  30'  in  alljthe 
remaining  territory.  M'as  this  a  compact?  Let 
ua  see  hov/  it  was  regarded  in  vai'ions  sec¬ 
tions  of  the  Union.  The  Legislature  of  Jlissonri 
accepted  this  condition,  and  came  into  Con¬ 
gress  the  next  year  asking  for  admission  a 
second  time.  If  it  was  a  compact,  let  us  see 
who  the  parties  were.  When  the  hill  for  the 
admission  of  Missouri  Avas  before  the  House  of 
Representatives  almost  CA'cry  member  from  the 
north  voted  against  it.  Did  they  then  recog¬ 
nize  it  as  a  compact? 

More.  In  the  interval,  after  the  passage  of 
that  laAV  of  Congress,  and  its  acceptance  by 
Missouri,  fhe  Legis-lature  of  the  State  of  NeAv 
York  instructed  their  Senators  and  requested 
their  representatives  to  vote  against  the  ad¬ 
mission  of  ^Missouri,  unless,  in  her  constitution, 
she  would  inhibit  Slavery.  Y'ou  remember, 
gentlemen,  that  this  was  after  the  passage  of 
the  law  for  the  admission  of  Missouri>  and  after 
slavery  was  inhibited  In  the  territory  north  of 
thirty-six  thirty.  And  New  York  w’as  not 
alone.  Tavo  days  afterAvards  Y'ermont,  and 
Massachusetts  some  days  later,  followed  in 
their  legiglativo  resolutions;  and  those  reso¬ 
lutions  Avere  sent  to  their  representatives  in 
Congress,  instructing  them  to  votoagaiosit  the 
adraiasiun  (d‘ Missouri,  unless  she  wouhl  con¬ 
sent  in  her  constitution  to  abolish  slavery. 

Take  theselegislative  instructions,  in  connec- 
tion  with  the  vote  whicli  was  given  upon  the 
qnestiou  of  the  admission  of  Missour:  -every 
member  from  the  north  voting upainsl  M6.  w  itfv 


the  exception,  I  think,  of  thirteen — and  upon 
wU.at  pretence  can  men  come  up  and  talk  about 
tlie  violation  of  a  compact?  That  compact,  it 
one,  AA'as  passed  in  1820,  and  yet,  in  1821,  the 
same  members  voted  against  the  admission  of 
Missouri,  upon  the  ground  that  she  tolerated 
slavery.  The  compact  existed  then,  if  it  exist 
ed  at  all. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  a  northern  man,  by  birth 
education  and  association,,  and  in  vindication.c 
the. north,  I  deny  that  it  aa^os  a  compact  in  an  , 
sense — in  any  sense  binding  hpnorablo  men. 

What  occurred  afterwards?.  The  session  av£ 
draAving  to  a  close,  and  I  think  it  AA  as  the  sLoi 
session.  Mr  Clay,  from  a  joint  .committee,  ii. 
trodneed  a  resolution  to  the  effect,  that  if  Mh 
souri  should  so  construe  her  constitution  as  t 
permit  the  citizens  of  other  States  to  come  i 
Avithout  loss  of  any  constitutional  right,  sh 
should  be  admitted  upon  notice  given  upon  th 
proclamation  of  the  President  of  the  Unite 
Stales,  It  Avas  at  this  time  that  Mr.  Cla* 
became  connected  Avith  the  Missouri  Coinpri, 
mise. 

Gentlemen  aaUI  recollect,  tliat,  in  the  rcsolr 
tion  of  1821,  not  one  Avord  was  said  about  tl 
inhibition  of  slavery  north  of  thirty-six  thirty 
It  does  not  speak  of  any  territory  of  the  Unite 
States;  it  speaks  only  of  Missouvi,  Mr..C.lay  ri 
ported  this  joint  resolution  from  a  joint  comini; 
tee  of  the  tAvo  Houses,  AAduch  had  been  rai.se. 
on  his  motion.  That  resolution  admitted  Mis 
souri  into  the  Union,  ajidiio-t  the  act  of  1820. 

In  this  asi^ect  of  tliQ  g.a^c  then,  alkw-ill  agree 
AAith  me,  that  it  cannot  be  considered  a  com¬ 
pact,  and  therefore  there  has  been  no  violation 
of  any  compact  on  the  part  of  this  Congress. 

But  again.  Y'on  wlU  recollect  that  Ar¬ 
kansas,  (which  Vvuui  a  portion  of  the  Louisiana 
purchase)  in  lS3d,  applied  for  admission  as  a 
State  of  the  Union.  What  was  the  vote  of 
Massachusetts,  (a  State,  Avith  others,  noAV  claim¬ 
ing  the  Missouri  line  as  a  compact?)  I  believe 
every  one  of  her  delegation  voted  against  Ar¬ 
kansas  because  she  tolerated  Slavery.  IVhy 
did  Massachusetts  violate  that  compact,  if  a 
compact?  But  Ylassachusetts  A\ as  not  alone  in 
j  this.  Other  States  now  talking  of  compacts, 
voted  with  her.  .  Reineinber  Arkun.sa.s  Is  south 
of  dG"'  30',  and,  if  that  line  was  a  compact  line, 
she  had  a  right  to  be  admitted  A\-{th  slavery  it 
this  claim  of  oompact  .be  tra.e.  Thus,  then,  has 
natMa'SsachnsetOC’ounecliout,  ami  other  8;(atts 
Airtiially  said  it  \\:m  not  a  eoiiipicl? 

Aabtlmr.  fact.  J"hn  t.^uiuey  Ad.uu;,  in 


4 


place,  t'aid  he  thought  Arkansas  was  entitled 
to  admission  with  or  without  slavery.  He  re 
gretted  that  it  was  so.  Why?  because  of  the 
compact  of  1820,  called  the  Missouri  Com¬ 
promise?  No,  he  did  not  place  it  on  that  ground. 
He  told  the  country  that  it  was  because  of  a 
stipulation  in  the  treaty  with  France  for  the 
purchase  of  Louisiana,  which  bound  the  honor 
of  the  nation  to  admit  her,  without  reference 
to  her  condition  in  relation  to  slavery.  Good 
faith  and  treaty  obligation  required  it.  He 
did  not  say  one  word  about  the  violation  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise. 

But,  gentlemen,  let  us  travel  on  a  little  fur¬ 
ther.  I  think  it  was  in  1845  that  Florida  was 
admitted  into  the  Union.  True,  she  was  not  a 
part  of  the  Louisiana  purchase;  but  it  is  equal¬ 
ly  true  that  Florida  is  south  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  line.  Yet  we  find  the  then  rep.*e- 
sentative  from  this  very  district  voting  against 
her  admission  upon  the  ground,  I  presume,  that 
she  was  coming  in  as  a  slave  State;  and  1 
am  not  the  man  to  charge  him  with  a  violation 
of  a  compact. 

Colonel  Benton,  according  to  his  own  historic 
showing  and  a  more  recent  declaration  in  his 
speech  against  the  Nebraska  Bill,  came  forward 
in  Congress  with  a  proposition  which  took  olf 
the  free  territory  north  of  36®  30',  a  strip  twice 
as  large  as  the  State  of  Rhode  Island  and  added 
to  it  the  slave  State  of  Missouri.  He  says  it 
was  done  by  northern  votes.  At  all  events, 
seven  large  counties  were  thus  converted  from 
free  soil  to  slavery,  without  one  w  ord  as  to  the 
violation  of  a  compact  or  compromise. 

We  come  down  to  the  Compromise  Measures 
of  1850.  Our  friend,  the  President  of  this  con¬ 
vention,  W’as  then  a  member  of  Congress,  and 
he  well  remembers  that  in  the  bill  organizing 
the  Territory  of  New  Mexico,  and  fixing  the 
boundary  between  that  territory  and  Texas,  by 
the  provisions  of  that  bill,  a  portion  of  Texas 
north  of  36®  (and  which  by  the  terms  of 
the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States, 
when  formed  into  a  State  or  States,  Slavery  was 
to  be  prohibited  therein,  but  which  as  a  part  of 
Texas  was  Slave  territory,)  was  added  to  New 
Mexico,  again  altering  the  compromise  line  the 
distance  of  near  four  degrees  of  longitude. — 
Now,  you  will  remember,  that  in  organizing 
the  territory  of  New  Mexico,  Congress  left  it 
free  for  the  people  of  that  territory  to  choose 
for  themselves  either  for  or  against  slavery. — 
The  National  Democratic  Convention  of  1852 
and  the  Whig  convention  which  met  a  few  days 


afterwards,  both  pledged  themselves  to  stand 
by  the  compromises  of  1850,  as  a  settlement  of 
the  slavery  question.  Those  acts  had  organized 
two  Territories  and  admitted  one  State  upon  the 
principle  of  congressional  hon-intervention — 
California  came  into  the  Union,  and  New  Mexico 
and  Utah  were  distinctly  told:  Do  as  you  please 
in  regard  to  slavery.  The  Baltimore  conventions 
resolved  to  stand  by  this  principle,  as  the  set¬ 
tlement  of  the  whole  question  throughout  the 
whole  country.  1  have  already  said  to  you 
that  the  convention  assembled  here  in  the 
same  year,  adopted  the  same  principles,  when 
they  first  trusted  their  standard  to  my  hand; 
that  I  then  felt  myself  colled  upon  to  stand  by 
tliem — aye,  and  I  will  yet  stand  by  them  any¬ 
where  and  regardless  of  all  consequences; — 
[cheers;]  and  I  am  rejoiced  to-day,  that  this 
convention  has  not  only  a})probated  my  cour.se 
ill  this  respect,  but  reiterated  the  very  princi¬ 
ples  which  they  declared  two  years  ago.  (Pro¬ 
tracted  cheering.] 

I  think,  gentlemen,  1  have  been  able  to 
show,  that  the  charge  that  we  have  violated 
a  compact  is  unfounded;  that  the  Missouri  act 
was  not  a  compact;  that  it  was  not  so  regard¬ 
ed  at  the  time;  that  it  hag  never  Since  been  re¬ 
spected  as  a  compact.  It  is,  now  for  me  to 
show  that  the  repeal  of  that  line  was* demanded 
and  effected,  upon  a  principle  right  in  itself 
and  whatever  is  right  in  itself  has  always 
received  the  support  of  the  Democratic  party, 
[Cheers.] 

Gentlemen,  I  can  hardly  go  back  far  enougli 
in  American  history  without  going  to  the  be¬ 
ginning,  to  show  that  this  principle  has  always 
been  recognized  in  our  country.  It  was  not  for 
the  first  time  claimed  in  our  Declaration  of  In¬ 
dependence  which  seperated  ns  from  the  mother 
country, but  it  was  contained  in  many  of  the  char¬ 
ters  England  gave  to  the  old  colonies.  The  Kan 
sas  and  Nebraska  bill,  yon  remember,  gives  to 
the  people,  through  their  legislature,  th'e  regu¬ 
lation  of  their  own  affairs,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  "States. 
Now  permit  me  to  read  an  extract  from  the 
charter  of  William  and  Mary  to  Massachusetts 
Bay,  in  the  18th  year  of  their  reign,  taken  from 
the  Parliamentry  Re.gifter,  an  old  English 
book, 

'‘And  we  further,  for  ns  and  onr  heirs  and 
successors  give  and  grant  to  the  said  Governor 
and  the  great  and  general  court  or  assembly  of 
our  said  province  or  territory  for  the  time  be 
ing  ftill  poiver  and  authority  from  time  to 
time  to  make.  Ordain  arid  cstahUsh  all  man- 


mr  of.  laws,  statutes,  and  ordmaaces  tiirec- 
t'lQJis  and  instructions,  either  with  or  leithont 
penaliies  (i^o  far  as  the  same  be  not  repiipoant 
or  contrary  to  the  laws  of  Ibis  our  realm  of 
Kngland)  as  they  shall  judge  to- lie  lor  llie  goixl 
and  welfare  of  our  said  province  or  .territory, 
agd  for  the  government  and  ordering  tliereoT, 
and  for  the  people  inbabiiing,  or  who  shall  in¬ 
habit  the  same,  and  tor  the  necessary "rnpport 
and  government  thereof.'’ 

•  'I’his  was  the  second  charter  given  to  '\ras- 
sachusett.s  Bay,  and  1  ask  you  if  tlte  principle 
of  self  government,  is  not  clearly  recognised 
in  it.  Look  at  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  act 
and  see  if  the  same  powers  are  not  tfelegaled, 
the  same  rights  conceded,  to  the  peo]dc  inlmb- 
itlng  those  territorie.?,  that  were  v  ouchsalr-d 
as  a  matter  of  grace  by  an  Jhiglisb  King  and 
Queeti  two  centuries  ago.  Jt  monarchies  can 
be  generous,  surely  republic.s  shouhl  be  jinst. 
The  right  ‘Ho  life,  libort}'  and  property’’,  arc 
declared  to  be  “the  inaliable  right  <)l  .man.”-r- 
Tell  me  if  in  these  territories  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  should  be  the  guardian  or  the 
judges  of  those  rights,  or  shall  the  people  be  left 
to  exercise  for  tliemselves  those  attributes  of 
American  citizeushi[»?  If  it  belongs  to  Con¬ 
gress  and  should  be  exercised  by  Congress,  then 
they  are  not  citizens— they  are  only  subjects. 
AVe  then  avow  a  Congressional  supremacy  as 
despotic  in  its  power  as  that  claimed  by  Lord 
North  over  the  American  colonies — the  power 
“to  bind  them  in  all  cases  whatsoever.”  Is 
this  democratic  doctrine?  or  whig,  or  Ameri¬ 
can  doctrine?  Does  it  find  a  response  any  Avherc 
in  the  American  bo.som?  I  can  answer  for  yon. 
aud  say,  Nowhere,  wnlc.s.s  every  lesson  taught  by 
ouf  revolutionary  history  is  forgotten, or  disre- 
gar<l(‘d . 

Wliea  the  Pilgr’mis  of  the  May  Mower  land 
cd  nt  iHymoutli  Kpek,  they  adopted  rules  and 
regulations  for  the  government  of  tlic  infant 
colony.  “Scpiatter  sovereignly”  was  lirst  estab¬ 
lished  then,  by  the  puritan  fathers  of  New 
England — established  after  prayers  to  Heaven, 
for  light  and  wisdom  to  guide  them;  adopted, 
sir,  upon  their  knees,  in  tlip  fear  pf  God,  and  with 
open  Bibles  before  them.  principle 

of  self  goverumenf.,,  gjicj  to  no  great j.T  extent,  is 
embodied  in  — 

it  is^of  pilgrirp  bir^h,  ;md,^ro^w^th  amf  I  ask  her 
descendants,  if  it  is  fitting  that  rights  OyCf'cised 
then  shouldnot  be  exerciK.d  by ^U),e  pjeople  of  the 
territorie.j  now?,  9- 

You  w'ill  have  obf  erred  1  ha b  both  in  the 
charter,  and  Kansas  law,  there  l-'C’a  !?fi]mlation 
ia  the  one,  that  legislation  shall  not  tic  repng- 


uaut  or  couti  ary  to  the  laws  of  England,  anvl  in 
the  other,  Ihat'Hhc  corn  titiiliou  ami  all  laws  of 
the  U.  States  whicli  are  not  locally  iha]>plica- 
ble”  shall  Iia\  c  the  .'^ann;  force  ami  eflect  in  .‘^nld 
terrilorlos  a.‘<  (dsewluuv.  The  latter  provision 
in  the  dearth  of  substantial  ol»j?ctiori  to  the  bill 
iias  been  assailed  as  inlerv’enilpn  oh  Hie  part  of 
Congress.  1  have  not  time  now  to  examine  at 
length  the  truth  of  Du's  charge.  I  may  doit 
elsewlicre  and  upon  other  occa.sibns.  It  is  sulli 
cieut  for  my  present  purpose  to  say,  that  it  is 
contained  in  other  laws  lor  the  organizalion  of 
ti'rrltories,  w'Aiioht  objection  tit  Die  lime  of  the 
pas.sago  of  siicli  hiw.s  or  .since,  Dial  llieyinter- 
lerc  with  sjojrgovcrmm'nt  no  nioVo  in  Kansas 
or  Nebraska  than  with  In diaiifi— for  Indiana 
is  in  like  manner  subject  to  the  ^aine  cehstitu- 
tion  and  hiws.  The  very  fact  Ih'aT  the  const i- 
tutlon  gives  to  Congrc.ss  the  p'dwer'^‘'‘^lo  i^lsposo 
of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations 
re.<^pecting  Die  territory  or  other  pro]icrly  be¬ 
longing  to  the  United  Slates.”  establishes  Die 
further  fact  that  in  that  difposlDon  ami  in  Die 
making  of  these  rules  and  rogulalion.s,  Ihecon- 
stitiition  and  the  laws  of  Ihe, United  States 
must  travel  with  them  and  cover  Die  territor}" 
in  which  they  arc  apiilicalde.  In  other"  words 
territorial  governments  of  the  ^nited^tales. 
must  ill  the  very  nature  ol  things,  lie  subject 
to  Die  coiistitutloH  and  laws  of  the  Unite.; 
btates. 

But  I  am  ipt  yet  tlirough  >,vUb  the  colonia 
charters.  I  p.oxv  call  your.alieiitjoii  to  that  i 
Couuetlcut  granted  by  Charles  the  IT  I,L  pro 
vide.s,  Bbvt; 

“Th^,G(,)y,^hor,  Dc]mly|Gpvcnor  amba'^^istani 
'.sli'all  from  ‘tlnie  to  time  ihake,  brdaiii  and 
tablish  all  luaiincr of  AVhofditbTne  and  ‘reuMm 
aldi‘  laws,  statutes,  ordliiuciFR  dirccLions-nnd  in 
strijir^jpns,  not  contrary  to  Bielgwg  of  thm  realm 
of  Biiglandj”  4:c. 

Do  you  recollect  that,  lylich  Diis  san^c  char¬ 
ter  was  attempted  to  be  wrested  froh  Connec¬ 
ticut  l>y  a’  Britlsli  iiuuidaie  .and  at'  Die  point 
of  British  beyonets.  it  \A  a.s  concealed  ipian  old 
oak,  and  ^aiarded  with  vigil  care  ^as  (Hi  very 
talisman  of  their  libcrtic,s.  The’' same  ^Id  oak 
is  yet, standing,  known  the  ,\yo1’ltlVvcr  ,  as  thw 
“Cb.arlcr  Oak.”  Old  Conncctfcnt  pf^servi's  it 
as  a  ,uxcmcnto  of  her  early  .shffcflngS,  sacri 
fices  and  patriotism.  Long  m.ay  it  live,  ami 
long  may  the  priciples  of  self  go'vcrnnient 
as  declared  in  that  charter  nn<l  shelfcr  am! 
protcp.jjon  beneath  its  ancleiii  boughs.  Hut 
let  her,  in  her  pride  of  power  and  irt  remember- 
anee  (>fher  own  histoi  v  loler.yfe  111 


'i  or  the  Uiuievl  States  the  same  principles  of 
polltual  freedom,  which  she  maintained  at 
every  hazM-d  to  herself  when  a  colony — and  in 
recurrence  to  first  principles,  consent  to  leave 
the  people  of  such  territories  free,  to  ‘hniaiias’e 
their  own  aflairs  in  their  own  way.'’  Let  her 
do  this,  and  strike  sedition  and  jinllifcation 
from  her  statute  hook,  and  she  wall  continue 
worthy  the  precious  heritage. 

The  Charter  of  Lhode  Island  is  equally  ex¬ 
plicit,  hut  I  will  not  now  take  time  to  read  it; 
and  the  same  thing  will  ho  found  in  the  char¬ 
ters  of  Pennsylvania  and  ]\[aryland;  and,  I 
think,  in  that  of  Georgia  also.  And  yet,  ihcie 
principles,  older  than  our  government,  em- 
lialraed  in  the  Declaration  of  our  IndepcndencG| 
and  guarantied  ^hy  the  Constitution  of  the 
Union  were  assailed  hy  the  late  Fiisioii  Con¬ 
vention  at  Indianapolis,  and  still  more  rccciitly 
hy  a  similar  convention  assemhled  at  Bradford, 
in  this  District. 

The  question  before  us  is,  (Shall  Congress  pro¬ 
hibit  Slavery  in  the  territories,  or  shall  the 
people  of  the  territorias  ho  left  to  act  for  thom- 
.selvcs  upon  this  and  all  other  suljjccts  of  domes¬ 
tic  policy. 

Who  are  the  best  judges  of  their  wants,  ncce.s- 
sities,  interests?  Is  it  a  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  not  representing  them,  not  knowing 
them,  and  not  responsible  to  tliem? '  or  is  it  a 
legislature  of  their  own,  chosen  hy  themselves, 
and  from  among  themselves?  Who  hesitates 
to  say,  that  as  the  pco^do  of  those  territo¬ 
ries  are  tlic  objects  of  such  legislation,  they  arc 
the  proper  judges  of  its  nature  and  extent? 
Why  not,  then,  let  them  make  their  own  hws, 
as  we  make  ours?  But  it  is  said  hy  the  rnslonists 
that  they  do  not  propose  to  intcrlcrc  further 
than  to  restore  the  old  compromise  line  i)rohilj- 
iting  slavery  nortli  of  a  certain  degree  of  lali- 
lude;  and  that  they  do  that,  for  the  proteclion 
of  this  new  and  free  territory  from  the  aggres¬ 
sions  of  !he  sl.ave  power.  My  answer  is  that, 
if  the  people  of  that  ‘-free”  territory,  arc  op¬ 
posed  to  the  introduction  of  slavery,  then,  the 
riglit  and  the  authority  is  with  them  to  exclude 
it,  and  they  do  not  need  the  interference  of 
Congress  or  of  the  ‘•fnsionisis;”  hut  if  timy  want 
it,  and  estahli.ch  it,  it  is  their  act,  and  their 
caianmity,  and  I  do  not  know  what  hnsiness  it 
is  to  us.  If  .sucli  people  arc  capable  of  legisla¬ 
ting  upon  all  questions  a.Secting  life,  character 
and  property,  deflning  crimes  and  rnisdemennofo, 
and  providing  the  adetpmte  penalties,  if  they 
can  regulate  theii'  domestic  h-’girlatlon.  and  prO 


tect  personal  rights,  if  they  can  elaborate  a 
system  of  law2  in  relation  to  the  acquisition , 
alienation  and  descent  of  property  real  and  per¬ 
sonal,  I  cannot  for  the  life  of  me  sec,  why  they 
have  not  the  capacity  and  the  right  to  legis¬ 
late  upon  all  subjects  locally  applicable  to 
their  territory,  slavery  included. 

I  know  that  I  am  talkijig  to  an  audience 
of  a  Avestern  and  a  free  State,  whose  repug¬ 
nance  to  slavery  found.utteraiico  in  the  organic 
law  of  the  State,  where  it  provides  -‘that  there 
shall  ho  neither  slavery,  nor  involuntary  serv' 
tudo  within  the  State.”  I  share  that  feeling 
with  you,  and  I  voted  Avith  you  in  the  adoption 
of  that  constitution  Avjiich  excludes  it.  With 
you,  I  believe  slavery  to  he  a  social  and  politi¬ 
cal  evil,  and  I  think  ayg  decided  the  question 
for  ourselves  Avisely  and  Avell.  But  should  In¬ 
diana  by  her  vote  in  Congress  decide  it  for 
Kansas  or  Nebraska?  for  a  foreign  population, 
he^mud  our  jurisdiction,  and  alien  to  our  laAvs? 
M'ho  can  claim  such  a  right?  Has  Congress 
this  right?  If  it  can  prohibit  slavery  in  a  terri¬ 
tory,  may  it  not  establish  it?  The  .former  in¬ 
tervention  may  be  for  the  best  interests  of  tim 
territory,  tlio  latter  compatible  aud  in  confer' 
mity  Avitli  the  Avishes  of  its  inliabitants;  aud 
Avbile  the  inhibition  of  slavery  by  the  act  of  th 
territory,  Avould  be  heuA'en’s  justice  to  mau,  the 
exercise  of  this  poAver  by  Congress  for  either 
purpose  Avoiild  bo  a  violation  of  the  fundamen¬ 
tal  principles  of  our  republican  system  of  gov'- 
ernment. 

I  have  said  that  Slavery  is  a  social  and  polit¬ 
ical  Avrong.  Intemperance  rIso,  is  a  Avrong  t<> 
society;  it  is  dcsiructive  of  peace  and  good  or¬ 
der;  and  imbrutos  and  destroys  the  noblest  fa 
cnlties  of  man.  But  I  would  ask  such  of  you 
gentlemen  us  are  in  fuA  or  of  principles  of 
tlic  Maine  La\A',  whether  the  right  is  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  to  extend  that 
Law  over  the  territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebras¬ 
ka?  1  venture  to  say,  you  liavc  neAmr  thought 
of  such  legislation.  Ilom-ovor  anxious  you  may 
be  to  prevent  the  use  of  iutoxicating  beverages 
in  our  territories  you  Avould  nevtu*  claim  of 
Congress  such  legislation.  And  yet  you  ean- 
not  fail  to  perceive,  that  if  theia^  exists  the 
right  to  legislate  by  Congre.'^s  in  the  one 
case,  it  exists  in  others.  'SVe  e.onld  pass  laws 
upOii  any  subject  of  much  or  little  importance. 
We  could  amend  existing  laws  or  repeal  them, 
and  indeed  annihilate  llie  legi.'5lafive  povers  of 
tine  territories  altogeBu'v.  Ilemember,  tliese 
lerrUoricl?  are  no*,  renredeuf' ul  in  the  CongrefeS 


7 


of  the  United  States,  They  have  no  vote 
there.  They  are  powerless  in  that  body,  an<.l  I 
ask  if  Congress  can  better  represeuk  their  will, 
than  their  own  chosen  legislatures? 

But  further.  '\Vhy  take  from  the  citizens  of 
a  Territory  any  right  secured  by  the  constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States?  I  ixsk,  is  the  citizen 
of  a  Territory  less  qualified  to  cxerci«e  his 
judgment  on  the  slavery  question,  than  the 
citizen  of  Indiana?  One  of  our  Secretaries 
[Mr.  Graham]  was  a  member  of  the  Convention 
which  framed  our  State  Constitution;  let  him  go 
to  Kansas  and  tell  me  what  attribute  of  an  Amer¬ 
ican  citizen  does  he  lose  by  the  chnnge.  Upon 
what  principle  is  it  claimed  that  the  people  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  shall  not  decide  this  ques¬ 
tion  for  themselves,  as  we  decided  it  for  our¬ 
selves. 

I  know  it  is  asked,  that,  if  it  was  really  the 
intention  to  give  free  governments  to  Kansas 
and  Nebraska,  why  constitute  and  appoint  their 
Governors,  Secretaries,  Judges,  United  States 
Attorney  and  Marshal?  1  will  endeavor  to  smswer 
that  question.  The  Governor  of  Kansas  Terri¬ 
tory,  as.fin  officer  of  the  United  States  is  the 
Superintendent  of  Indian  Affairs,  makes  trea¬ 
ties  with  the  various  tribes,  has  the  care  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent  of  the  public  lands,  and 
other  property  of  the  United  States,  beside# 
performing  other  dutids  pointed  out  in  the  law. 
As  the  Executive  of  the  territory  it  is  his  duty 
to  carry  out  the  laAvs,  and  see  that  they  are 
executed  and  observed.  The  Secretary  of  the 
Territory  is  chnrged  Avith  the  disbursement  of 
the  public  money  for  the  payment  of  the  sala¬ 
ries  of  territorial  officers  and  other  appropria¬ 
tions  made  by  Congress  for  such  territories. 
The  Judges  exercise  the  same  functions  there 
Avhich  the  United  States  district  judge  for  In¬ 
diana  exercises  here,  but  their  existence  does 
not  prohibit  the  people  through  their  legisla¬ 
ture  from  creating  other  judges  according  to 
the  public  Avants.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
territorial  Attorney.  Again,  the  duties  of  the 
Marshal  of  the  Territory  are  of  the  same  char¬ 
acter  with  those  of  the  Marshal  of  any 
State.  With  Avhat  propriety  then  can  it  be 
said,  that  we  deny  the  right  of  self  government 
to  the  Territories  because  Ave  appoint  some  of 
their  officers,  since  it  is  manifest  that  the  gen¬ 
eral  government  does  the  same  thing,  to  a  lim¬ 
ited  degree  to  be  sure,  for  every  State  cf  the 
Union?  As  it  becomes  the  duty  of  Congress  to 
establish  “rules  and  regulations  respecting  the 
territory  and  other  property  of  the  United 


Slates,”  there  is  a  necessity  Rt  crcctiu;;  ),*y 
metes  and  Jjouiids  the  territory,  and  giv<-  it  an 
organized  existence.  Congress  must  (b)  it;  for 
it  is  the  territory  of  tlic  United  States  and 
there  is  no  one  else  to  do  it;  and  after  author¬ 
izing  the  people  to  elect  their  own  legislature 
and  establish  their  oavii  laAVS,  then  Congress 
ceases  to  act,  and  self  goveimra  mt  begins. — 
Every  law  passed  then  is  passed  by  the  Ter¬ 
ritory  and  is  the  voice  of  the  people.  Should 
it  be  otherwise? 

A  remark  or  tA^o  upon  another  subject,  and 
I  Avill  not  detain  you  longer. 

There  is  an  institution  in  our  midst,  secret 
in  its  chftractcr,  Ijaring  for  its  primary  object 
the  disfranchisement  of  foreigners,  and  the  pre¬ 
sentation  of  a  religious  test,  aFi  a  qualification 
for  office.  It  is  the  enemy  of  the  democratic 
party,  and  permit  me  to  add  of  the  country 
and  its  constitution — We  once  met  it  as  an 
open  enemy,  and  it  Avas  then  knoAvn  as  the 
“Native  American  party.”  Noav  it  meets  us 
Avith  a  smiling  lace  and  a  friendly  hand,  and 
AA’hilc  Ave  receivc|its  greetings  Avithout  suspicion . 
and  in  ignorance  of  its  name  and  object,  the 
assassin’s  dagger  is  plunged  into  our  lAOsom. — 
Its  Avork  is  done,  as  it  is  fitting  such  work 
should  he  done,  under  the  pall  of  night.  Oaths 
of  sccrcsy  conceal  their  deeds,  there  is  therefore 
no  detection,  for  no  one  can  “knoAv  nothing” 
about  it. 

“'Secret  path  marks  secret  foe;’’  I 

and  these  scefet  conclaves  of  “Know  Nothings,”  I 
shunning  the  light  of  day,  and  the  presence  ofl 
their  felloAv  men,  as  plainly  mark,  no  raiB-| 
sion  of  good,  or  of  public  AA'ea).  If  even  the! 
grievances  existed  AA'liich  are  alleged  in  rela-l 
'tion  to  our  adopted  citizens,  and  to  Catholi-I 
cism,  if  the  evil  had  become  so  great,  that  ill 
could  be  reached  only  in  derogation  of  UilI 
constitution  both  of  this  State,  and  of  th>l 
United  States,  and  if  to  cure  it,  wo  arc  to  IramB 
pie  under  foot  Avithout  thought  or  reraorseB 
Avhat  h;vs  heretofore  been  regarded  as  a  sacrciB 
principle  of  our  GoA’crnmcnt  and  Avhich  hal 
constituted  a  proud  national  boast,  “religiouH 
freedom,”  in  Heaven’s  name  let  it  be  done  AvitB 
the  courage  and  independence  l)efitting  thH 
American  character,  done  openly — done  Avitb  H 
manly  avowal  of  cause  and  purpose,  and  aaH 
could  then  although  abhoring  their  principle* 
have  a  decent  respect  for  their  boldness.  H 
speak  of  A\  hat  I  understand  to  be  their  doctrinH 
and  its  tendencies — I  have  nothing  to  do 
the  motives  of  its  members.  H 


8 


That  there  nr(;  ^vorthy  men  amotig  them  J 
to  odmit — men  misled  hy  appeals 
to  their  prejudices  and  their  i)ride,  and  made 
to  Indicvo  in  the  first  instance  tliat  there  was 
no  party  object  to  subserve,  but  simply  apoli¬ 
tical  wrong  to  remedy.  Such  I  would  adjure, 
by  every  consideration  of  justice,  and  love  of 
country,  to  abandon  an  organization-,  where 
bigotry  and  treason,  are  made  the  cardinal  ar¬ 
ticles  of  its  faith.  Let  me  also  warn  my  dem¬ 
ocratic  friends  to  beware  of  the  seductive  wiles 
thrown  around  them  to  inveigle  them  in  its  em¬ 
brace.  Its  serpent  tongue  often  whispers  in 
your  ear,  and  its  syren  song  breaks  upon  your 
path  in  the  stillness  «f  the  'night.  It  is  done 
to  beguile,  to  draw  you  cautiously  but  surely 
within  its  folds,  and  then,  manacled  with 
oaths,  you  arc  the  slaves  of  its  will. 

Wc  are  to  meet  it;  no  sir,  I  will  correct  my¬ 
self  and  say,  wc  are  to  feel  it,  in  the  coming 
canvass,  for  traveling  in  darkness  with  a  stel- 
thy  and  coward  step,  wc  shall  not  sec  its 
face.  It  becomes  us  then  to  keep  “watch  and 
guard”  at  every  post,  and  block  every  avenue 
to  its  iiisiduons  approach.  Democrats  choated 
into  fellowship  with  it,  tliongh  but  a  small  ])art 
of  the  aggregate  number,  will,  if  they  do  Urn 
work  assigned  them,  be  made  to  slick  the  knife 
deep  into  the  hearts  of  their  friends  and  politi¬ 
cal  brethren.  They  were  initiated  into  the 
order  for  that  very  purpose.  Will  they  heed 
its  mandates?  May  we  not,  on  the  contrary 
hope  that. when  reflection  and  observation  have 
(lisclosed  its  design,  they  wdll  leave  its  secret 
chambers,  and  again  rally  around  their  old 
staedard,  which  never  deceived  them,  and  where 
under  its  broad  folds  they,  and  every  interest 
of  the  country,  will  always  find  ample  protec¬ 
tion. 

From  the  first  hour  of  the  government  to 
the  present  we  have  invited  the  oppressed  of 
all  nations  to  our  republican  asylum,  and  point¬ 
ed  them  to  that  glorious  page  in  our  constitu¬ 
tion  which  declared  that  “Congress  should 
make  no  law',  respecting  an  establishment  of 
religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  there¬ 
of.”  The  framers  of  that  Constitution  were 
not  unmindful  that  in  the  struggle  for  indepen¬ 
dence  Lafayette  poured  out  his  treasure  and 


1  his  youDg  blood,  like  water,  to  achieve  it. — 
.Montgomery,  a  noble  son  of  Ireland,  fell  at 
Quebec  before  that  independence  was  declared, 
and  fell  a  rebel  to  England,  and  a  patriot  to 
America;  and  well  might  England's  Parliament 
say,  “a  curse  on  his  virtues,  he  has  undone  his 
country.” 

Need  I  speak  of  Pulaski,  the  gallant  Pole, 
wlio  found  an  early  grave  on  another  of  our 
revolutionary  battle  fields,  or  of  Steuben,  of  De 
Kalb  and  Ko.scinsko,  who,  all  of  them,  devoted 
every  faculty  and  energy  of  life  to  our  aid.  Yet 
remembering  all  this,  and  teaching  it  to  our 
children,  shall  w'e  turn  to  the  descendants  and 
countrymen  of  these  great  men,  and  say:  come 
among  us  if  you  wdll,  but  if  you  come,  it  shall 
be  as  a  cast — not  as  citizens — a  population  to 
look  down  upon,  and  not  to  look  to,  as  erpials. 
If  you  come,  you  shall  come  and  stay  among  us 
disrobed  of  every  right  of  the  freeman,  except 
the  right  to  live,  to  delve,  to  sell  and  buy  in 
marts — in  that  wc  will  protect  you,  for  in  that 
you  may  minister  to  our  wants. 

Should  this  be  our  language?  Was  it  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  revolution?  AVhy  .should  they  not 
vote  or  hold  oflice,  if  they  are  capable  and  hon¬ 
est  mid  faithful  to  their  adopted  country? — 
General  Shields,  who  now  so  well  represents 
our  sister  State  of  Illinois  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  Statc.s,  is  he  Ic.ss  worthy  because  Ire¬ 
land  was  his  birth  place  instead  of  America. 
Mark  hi.s  wearied  look,  his  languid  step,  that 
quick  and  anxious  respiration.  What  causes  this? 
I  ivcll  tell  you.  lie  fell  at  Cerro  Gordo,  while 
gallantly  leading  a  charge,  his  chest  riddled 
w'ith  R  musket  ball.  The  tide  of  life  ebbed 
rapidly;  Mwas  said  it’s  a  mortal  w'ound;  but  he 
lived  Rud  carried  the  flag  of  bis  adopted  coun¬ 
try  into  other  battles,  and  always  in  triumph* 
Tell  me,  tell  any  body,  that  he  is  an  alien,  and 
therefore  deserves  neither  office  or  citizenship! 
I  wdll  go  no  further,  nor  follow  longer,  this 
lineal  descendant  of  the  federal  Alien  law. — 
We  must  not  only  rebuke  it  for  its  intrusion 
but  drive  it  from  among  us.  If  it  retains  a  foot¬ 
hold  now  it  will  struggle  for  a  supremacy,  and 
if  that  direful  event  should  ever  overtake  us, 
we  may  close  the  book  of  American  history  in 
sorrow  and  in  shame. 

■  I 


Printed  at  the  jSI.  Joseph  County  Forum  Of&ce,  South  Bend,  Indiana. 


